Development of a national survey on foot involvement among people with psoriatic arthritis in Australia using a best practice approach: a survey development protocol.


Journal

Journal of foot and ankle research
ISSN: 1757-1146
Titre abrégé: J Foot Ankle Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101471610

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 Aug 2020
Historique:
received: 15 06 2020
accepted: 20 08 2020
entrez: 28 8 2020
pubmed: 28 8 2020
medline: 30 6 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Limited research to date has defined the nature and extent of foot involvement in a psoriatic arthritis-specific population in Australia and the scale of the problem remains unclear. Survey research provides the ideal opportunity to sample a large population over a wide geographical area. Although quality criteria for survey research have been developed, research shows that adherence is low and that survey studies are poorly reported in peer-reviewed survey articles, which limits the ability to inform future survey design. The objective of this paper was to develop a national survey about foot involvement in people with psoriatic arthritis using a best practice approach. This is a methods paper for the development of survey research. A systematic, multi-stage process of survey development was undertaken, which comprised 3 phases: 1) the generation of the conceptual framework and survey content; 2) the development of the survey and pre-testing and 3) development of the survey dissemination strategy. A survey best practice approach was adopted using iterative pre-testing techniques, which included; cognitive debriefing, cultural sensitivity review, survey design expert validation, subject expert validation and pilot testing. Targeted postal and online survey dissemination strategies were developed a priori to optimise the response rates anticipated. A 59-item survey with 8 sections was developed. Findings demonstrated a high survey response (n = 649), high data completeness (83% of respondents reached the end of the survey) and low rates of missing data (below 5% for 95% of respondents). Extensive survey pre-testing among the target population, health professionals and experts improved the overall quality, content validity, functioning and representativeness of the survey instrument, which optimised potential response rates. Clear audit trails that mapped the analytical process at each stage substantiated the rigour of the survey development methods. Robust strategies for sampling, survey dissemination and community engagement were deemed to have made a powerful contribution to response rates and the scale of information collected. Robust patient-centred methods in survey design were used to create a novel, high-quality survey to comprehensively evaluate psoriatic arthritis-related foot involvement. Transparent and precise description of the survey design and dissemination methods provides useful information to other researchers embarking on survey design in healthcare.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Limited research to date has defined the nature and extent of foot involvement in a psoriatic arthritis-specific population in Australia and the scale of the problem remains unclear. Survey research provides the ideal opportunity to sample a large population over a wide geographical area. Although quality criteria for survey research have been developed, research shows that adherence is low and that survey studies are poorly reported in peer-reviewed survey articles, which limits the ability to inform future survey design. The objective of this paper was to develop a national survey about foot involvement in people with psoriatic arthritis using a best practice approach. This is a methods paper for the development of survey research.
METHODS METHODS
A systematic, multi-stage process of survey development was undertaken, which comprised 3 phases: 1) the generation of the conceptual framework and survey content; 2) the development of the survey and pre-testing and 3) development of the survey dissemination strategy. A survey best practice approach was adopted using iterative pre-testing techniques, which included; cognitive debriefing, cultural sensitivity review, survey design expert validation, subject expert validation and pilot testing. Targeted postal and online survey dissemination strategies were developed a priori to optimise the response rates anticipated.
RESULTS RESULTS
A 59-item survey with 8 sections was developed. Findings demonstrated a high survey response (n = 649), high data completeness (83% of respondents reached the end of the survey) and low rates of missing data (below 5% for 95% of respondents). Extensive survey pre-testing among the target population, health professionals and experts improved the overall quality, content validity, functioning and representativeness of the survey instrument, which optimised potential response rates. Clear audit trails that mapped the analytical process at each stage substantiated the rigour of the survey development methods. Robust strategies for sampling, survey dissemination and community engagement were deemed to have made a powerful contribution to response rates and the scale of information collected.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Robust patient-centred methods in survey design were used to create a novel, high-quality survey to comprehensively evaluate psoriatic arthritis-related foot involvement. Transparent and precise description of the survey design and dissemination methods provides useful information to other researchers embarking on survey design in healthcare.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32847560
doi: 10.1186/s13047-020-00424-w
pii: 10.1186/s13047-020-00424-w
pmc: PMC7448479
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Observational Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

53

Références

J Foot Ankle Res. 2016 Mar 22;9:10
pubmed: 27006702
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2015 Jan;54(1):157-62
pubmed: 25125591
Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Apr;76(4):673-680
pubmed: 27613807
J Grad Med Educ. 2013 Sep;5(3):353-6
pubmed: 24404294
Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2014 May;16(5):418
pubmed: 24623563
J Rheumatol. 2017 Oct;44(10):1522-1528
pubmed: 28148697
Clin Rheumatol. 2016 Sep;35(9):2333-8
pubmed: 27225246
PLoS Med. 2010 Aug;8(8):e1001069
pubmed: 21829330
PLoS One. 2018 Jun 18;13(6):e0194239
pubmed: 29912881
Scand J Rheumatol. 2013;42(4):299-302
pubmed: 23286761
Med Teach. 2014 Jun;36(6):463-74
pubmed: 24661014
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2012 Aug;42(1):32-41
pubmed: 22424812
Arthritis Rheum. 2001 Apr;45(2):151-8
pubmed: 11324779
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 19;8(12):e85287
pubmed: 24367708
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2008 Jan;47(1):92-5
pubmed: 18077498
J Rheumatol. 2017 Feb;44(2):193-200
pubmed: 27980011
Med J Aust. 2006 Sep 4;185(5):263-7
pubmed: 16948622
Ann Rheum Dis. 2010 May;69(5):928
pubmed: 20413569
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2011 Mar-Apr;29(2):217-22
pubmed: 21504659
Ann Rheum Dis. 2005 Mar;64 Suppl 2:ii3-8
pubmed: 15708931
J Foot Ankle Res. 2014 Aug 13;7:36
pubmed: 25729436
Neurology. 2006 Sep 12;67(5):792-7
pubmed: 16966539
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(31):1-256
pubmed: 11809125
J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34
pubmed: 15471760
Surg Endosc. 2020 Jun;34(6):2665-2674
pubmed: 31372888
Am J Pharm Educ. 2008 Feb 15;72(1):11
pubmed: 18322573
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Clin Rheumatol. 2019 Jun;38(6):1605-1613
pubmed: 30617439
CMAJ. 2008 Jul 29;179(3):245-52
pubmed: 18663204
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2012 Feb;26(1):147-56
pubmed: 22424200
Acad Med. 2010 May;85(5):925
pubmed: 20520050
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012 Feb;51(2):275-83
pubmed: 21752872
Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Jul;71(7):1143-50
pubmed: 22258482
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2014 Apr;53(4):737-40
pubmed: 24369414
Int J Behav Med. 2017 Jun;24(3):438-446
pubmed: 28155081
J Rheumatol. 2010 Sep;37(9):1885-91
pubmed: 20595273
Rheumatol Ther. 2016 Jun;3(1):91-102
pubmed: 27747516
Res Nurs Health. 2006 Oct;29(5):489-97
pubmed: 16977646
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 May 4;20(1):191
pubmed: 31054575
Arthritis Rheum. 2007 Apr 15;57(3):487-94
pubmed: 17394177
Int J Qual Health Care. 2003 Jun;15(3):261-6
pubmed: 12803354
Scand J Rheumatol. 2000;29(1):52-5
pubmed: 10722258

Auteurs

Kate Carter (K)

Podiatry department, School of Health Science, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown Campus, Sydney, Australia. kate.carter@westernsydney.edu.au.

Steven Walmsley (S)

Podiatry department, School of Health Science, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown Campus, Sydney, Australia.

Keith Rome (K)

Health and Rehabilitation Research Institute, Faculty of Health and Environmental Science, AUT University, 90 Akoranga Drive, Northcote, Auckland, 0627, New Zealand.

Deborah E Turner (DE)

Podiatry department, School of Clinical Sciences, Kelvin Grove Campus, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH